This is a two way street Linda. You're not listening to anything I'm saying. You're not addressing any of the points I've made which refute your arguments. You're just insisting that I'm implying something I'm not. However sure you are that the "narrowing of the definition" is a cultural defence, you're wrong.

In fact, I'm not even sure what narrowing you're talking about. The cultural definition has broadened. Racism, in it's original framing, referred to the difference between black and white people. As the (incorrect) concept of race took hold, this then expanded to include other "races" and ethnicities.

Maybe you think I'm saying that racism only applies to black people. I'm not saying that. There's anti-Asian racism and anti-Indian racims and anti-white racism. But there isn't, for example, anti-French racism. It's bad English. The word doesn't apply there. For discrimination against French people you might use a word like xenophobia or nationalism.

Again, all I'm doing is using English words as they're meant to be used. Women, for example, have experienced terrible oppression over the centuries. I'm not ranking racism against it or saying that racism is worse. But I don't call it racism. I call it sexism or misogyny. Because that's the word that applies. If somebody discriminated against a black person (who wasn't gay), I wouldn't call it homophobia.

I really don't understand where the problem is.